Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[capricorn]

Oh, I'm frequently of two minds.....

Oh, give it a rest. You're getting to sound more and more like a teacher.

[Kitchener]

Oh, give it a rest. You're getting to sound more and more like a teacher.

Fair enough. I'll even resist the urge to grade your performance.

Anyhow, as I said somewhere back in the thread I didn't read, there's no way of saying whether Mulroney was a crook given what we know now. But there are serious questions, at a minimum, and I do think a large-scope inquiry would serve the public interest. I suspect it would embarrass the Liberals as much as the Conservatives, mind, but they might think they've paid their price already in the public's opinion and be willing to roll the dice on that. Either way, I like the idea that if a PM is an influence-peddler, s/he should know that the truth will out, however long it takes.

[capricorn]

Anyhow, as I said somewhere back in the thread I didn't read, there's no way of saying whether Mulroney was a crook given what we know now.

Should we discount the findings of the initial investigation that found Mulroney innocent in the Airbus affair? If we do, we will have to revisit old territory and for what?

I suspect it would embarrass the Liberals as much as the Conservatives, mind, but they might think they've paid their price already in the public's opinion and be willing to roll the dice on that.

It seems to me that since the Conservatives are not one and the same as the now defunct Tory party, the Liberals would pay a higher price in whatever matters are examined in the course of an inquiry, especially the circumstances around the $2M settlement paid to Mulroney. If that would end up being the main focus of an inquiry, I'm not so vindictive toward the Liberals as to wish for it. In this respect I would prefer to turn the page and look ahead.

Either way, I like the idea that if a PM is an influence-peddler, s/he should know that the truth will out, however long it takes.

This is what I think Harper aimed for when he commissioned Johnston to determine the scope of an inquiry, that is, protecting the integrity of the PM's office. This could only be accomplished by examining Mulroney's actions during his time as PM and Harper's own actions because Schreiber named him in an affidavit. I posted earlier in this thread that Harper has no choice but to accept Johnston's recommendations whatever they may be otherwise he will pay a price. Whether an inquiry is held or not is of no consequence to me therefore whatever is decided is fine by me.

[capricorn]

Johnston recommends a narrow Mulroney/Schreiber inquiry.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to establish a limited public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber saga after receiving a report from an independent third party, CTV News has learned.

Sources say independent adviser David Johnston recommended to the prime minister that the government set up a narrow inquiry into Brian Mulroney's business dealings with former arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber.

He proposed the inquiry focus on whether Mulroney acted improperly in 1993 when he accepted cash payments from Schreiber to lobby on his behalf to promote a German-built military vehicle.

Johnson rejected a full-scale inquiry that would re-examine allegations of possible kickbacks in the 1988 sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada, arguing the matter has already been thoroughly investigated by the RCMP. "

But, Johnston says the findings of the Commons Ethics Committee might impact on the PM's final decision on whether to call the inquiry.

"Johnston also left open the door for the prime minister to avoid setting up a public inquiry if he is satisfied with the work of the Commons committee, according to sources."

Will the PM's decision be tempered by the following observation?

But a senior insider said Harper has no choice but to immediately set up a public inquiry, otherwise the "opposition will scratch out our eyes."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

This is consistent what I have been saying. The PM should follow the advice contained in Johnston's report and call for the limited public inquiry and ignore the findings of the Commons Ethics Committee.

[jbg]

Remarkable.

1996 = current matter

1993, 1994 = ancient history

Who knew?

Oh puh-leeease. Sponsorship was shut down when, in 2002? 2003? Sheila Frasier's report came out, I believe, in March 2004. That's hardly excavating ancient history.

[Kitchener]

Oh puh-leeease. Sponsorship was shut down when, in 2002? 2003? Sheila Frasier's report came out, I believe, in March 2004. That's hardly excavating ancient history.

So, you were opposed to the scope of the Gomery inquiry, and you opposed the way that the media and the then-Opposition Conservatives threw around the full dollar amounts of the sponsorship budgets.

Because much of the inquiry, and much of that expenditure, was "ancient history".

[Kitchener]

Should we discount the findings of the initial investigation that found Mulroney innocent in the Airbus affair?

Since that didn't happen, yes, we should discount it.

Investigations virtually never find people innocent, nor did this one. The initial investigation concluding merely that it lacked enough evidence to make charges stick. Hence the RCMP continued to investigate the Airbus affair for years afterwards (with what competence, again, it is difficult to say under our current state of information). If current evidence is different from that under which the initial investigation concluded -- for instance, if Mulroney has since quietly paid income tax on cash payments he first denied accepting -- then so too may the conclusion of an inquiry change.

If we do, we will have to revisit old territory and for what?

I believe I've answered this. For the rule of law, inter alia, and to clearly establish that it applies to our most powerful politicians -- yes, even if fifteen whole years have passed.

...I'm not so vindictive toward the Liberals as to wish for it. In this respect I would prefer to turn the page and look ahead.

I take you at your word. However, since vindictiveness towards the Liberals figures into my reasoning no more than vindictiveness towards the Conservatives did, this does not affect my grounds for supporting an inquiry.

[jbg]

So, you were opposed to the scope of the Gomery inquiry, and you opposed the way that the media and the then-Opposition Conservatives threw around the full dollar amounts of the sponsorship budgets.

Because much of the inquiry, and much of that expenditure, was "ancient history".

Not really. Alfonse Gagliano was still Embassador to Denmark (where he was sent to get him away from the maelstrom) at the time of the inquiry, and many of the people involved were still involved in party politics and/or government. On the other hand, there have been four PM's, spanning two (or three, depending how you count) parties since Mulroney.

[Oleg Bach]

So, you were opposed to the scope of the Gomery inquiry, and you opposed the way that the media and the then-Opposition Conservatives threw around the full dollar amounts of the sponsorship budgets.

Because much of the inquiry, and much of that expenditure, was "ancient history".

Gomery was a pacifier much like the little judge that sentence his Lordship Black - at least the Amreicans are not affraid to burn their own on occassion to calm down the people giving them the illusion that there is justice - where as Gomery is just a very bright lawyer who knows who is who...he gave the culprits a spanking while wearing oven mitts. This again was to pacify the public that we actually have a justice system - where in reality all legalist function no longer on the motto at Osgoode - "Let right prevail" - but - function on the motto "We are privledged and it may be immoral but it is legal - so kiss my black robed butt" - Gomery really did nothing other than provide some theatre and some very interesting self indulgent complexity that diverted the real issues of crimminal behaviour and made what should be a chargeable offence into as Malroney said - a common "mistake" - I remember a court of appeal judge say of the trial judge - "He mis-spoke - I would say that if he mis-spoke - he also - mis-thought...these are dancers - these are not men of justice.

[jdobbin]

Harper calls inquiry based on Johnston's report.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The federal government confirmed on Friday there will be a limited public inquiry into Brian Mulroney's business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

The announcement comes after Prime Minister Stephen Harper received a report from independent adviser David Johnston.

Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo, delivered his report to Harper on Wednesday. The Conservative government had apparently considered waiting until Monday to release the report, but opted against holding onto it, reports the Canadian Press.

"I would like to thank Professor David Johnston for his impartial advice on how the Government should proceed," Harper said in a statement issued Friday afternoon.

Harper said the public inquiry will convene once the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has finished its hearings. This, said the prime minister, would ensure the inquiry will "usefully build on any testimony heard by the Ethics Committee."

"I have also asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry on an expedited basis once the Committee has completed its work. I am pleased that he has agreed to do so."

CTV News first reported Thursday that Johnston would propose a public inquiry with very narrow terms.

Johnson rejected a full-scale inquiry that would re-examine allegations of possible kickbacks in the 1988 sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada, arguing the matter has already been thoroughly investigated by the RCMP.

Looks like all the speculation that Johnston would rule in favour on no inquiry was just wishful thinking.

Harper could have decided to discard the advice of Johnston but that probably would have only prolonged the pain.

[jbg]

I suspect Harper has nothing to be afraid of, and aside from the wasted money and time will sleep untroubled. It is disturbing to have so much money wasted on ancient history; let's investigate the Grand Trunk Railroad and the Trans-Canada railroad while we're at it.

I mean, hey, Macdonald was a Conservative too and may not have been pure as driven snow.

[Oleg Bach]

I suspect Harper has nothing to be afraid of, and aside from the wasted money and time will sleep untroubled. It is disturbing to have so much money wasted on ancient history; let's investigate the Grand Trunk Railroad and the Trans-Canada railroad while we're at it.

I mean, hey, Macdonald was a Conservative too and may not have been pure as driven snow.

I hear that Macdonald made some decisions while totally drunk that effect us negatively to this day - lets investigate that. So now there will be an enquiring minds will torment the ailing and ageing Malroney...wonderful - just what we need - another diversion. Just wish that we would consentrate on some average people that are the base of the nation - fix some social ills if you know what I mean. This inquiry will just be more rich and privledged people making more money at our expense - and playing some false intellectual legalist mind game to amuse there sorry butts.

[capricorn]

It is disturbing to have so much money wasted on ancient history; let's investigate the Grand Trunk Railroad and the Trans-Canada railroad while we're at it.

I mean, hey, Macdonald was a Conservative too and may not have been pure as driven snow.

Unlike Dion, Bob Rae wanted a narrow inquiry. Speaking about ancient history, Bob Rae said:

“We don’t need an archeological dig, I think we need answers to some very specific questions,” he said.

“We need to get on with it. We need to get on with it quickly. Because we don’t need or want a soap opera that’s going to go on for years and years and years and years.”

It looks like Rae's view is best reflected in Johnston's recommendations. Liberal caucus discussions on the inquiry must be quite animated given the divergent views on the scope of the inquiry among the higher echelons of the party.

Edit. I forgot the link.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...arper-with.aspx

Edited January 12, 2008 by capricorn

[Oleg Bach]

Unlike Dion, Bob Rae wanted a narrow inquiry. Speaking about ancient history, Bob Rae said:

“We don’t need an archeological dig, I think we need answers to some very specific questions,” he said.

“We need to get on with it. We need to get on with it quickly. Because we don’t need or want a soap opera that’s going to go on for years and years and years and years.”

It looks like Rae's view is best reflected in Johnston's recommendations. Liberal caucus discussions on the inquiry must be quite animated given the divergent views on the scope of the inquiry among the higher echelons of the party.

Edit. I forgot the link.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...arper-with.aspx

You know and I know that institutional corruption is the norm in Canada - we are just a fancey version of a banana republic. So what else is new - Gomery changed nothing. This Malroney affair will not bring about the necessary reforms either - so lets forget it and carry on. IF you honestly believe that this inquirey will assist in a reformation of government and the judicary - then go for it - I just don't see that. Bad behaviour is to entrenched. It's a hopeless endevour..better off to dismantle the Supreme Court and get some real people in their that will act independently and actually practice law and seek justice for the people - Now that would be useful. We sorely need reform form the bottom to the top..This is just a game and a waste and a "show trial" in the making.

[August1991]

So what's up with Norman Spector? This is how he started his column yesterday in Le Devoir:

Samedi dernier, la chroniqueuse Lysiane Gagnon expliquait aux lecteurs de La Presse que Brian Mulroney doit principalement ses difficultés au Canada anglais au fait d'avoir négocié l'accord de libre-échange canado-américain et, surtout, l'accord du Lac-Meech. Elle y critiquait «l'acharnement que met [...] une certaine presse torontoise à fouiller dans la petite histoire du régime Mulroney pour y trouver la preuve que l'ancien premier ministre était un personnage véreux».

I'd agree.

After blathering on about various well-known accusations - Stevie Cameron this, William Kaplan that - Spector writes this:

Il y a trois ans, j'ai contribué à un chapitre du livre de M. Kaplan en dépit du fait que j'étais l'architecte de l'accord du Lac-Meech.

Huh? Spector was the architect of Meech Lake?

News to me.

Then Spector tries to take credit for the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement!

After that, Spector implies that he was forced to resign from the civil service because he refused to submit to pressure from David Dingwall, a Liberal minister.

Finally, Spector, like an aged effeuilleuse desperately seeking attention, finishes his column with this:

Dans dix jours, je témoignerai devant le comité d'éthique de la Chambre, à son invitation. Les députés s'intéresseront sans doute à ma bonne connaissance du projet Bear Head alors que j'étais chef du cabinet de M. Mulroney. J'espère également aider le comité à comprendre les motivations et le comportement de mon ancien patron en citant d'autres dossiers. Finalement, documents en main, je compte bien être en mesure de les aider à identifier la source de grandes quantités d'argent comptant rapportées au 24, promenade Sussex, alors que M. Mulroney était premier ministre du Canada.

If he has something to say, he should say it. Indeed, he should have said it long ago. I suspect that he has nothing to say - en dépit de ses documents en main - except what is already known.

PS. CTV had this short report today:

A troubling new allegation about large amounts of cash arriving at 24 Sussex Drive when Brian Mulroney was prime minister will be aired at the Commons ethics committee.

The committee is set to reconvene next week when the Commons returns from a six-week break.

PPS. Why did Spector choose Le Devoir to announce this? Is this an egomaniac's attempt to boost its circulation?

PPPS. Maybe I should change this thread's title to the "Bear Head affair" instead of the "Airbus affair". IOW, how did that change suddenly take place?

Edited January 26, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

PPPS. Maybe I should change this thread's title to the "Bear Head affair" instead of the "Airbus affair". IOW, how did that change suddenly take place?

I noticed the trashing has already started in regards to Spector in various blogs in the last day.

He was Mulroney's chief of staff. I expect that Conservatives on the committee will be looking show he has an axe to grind.

Mulroney seems particularly nervous about all the talk in regards to his tax records being investigated. Now that someone else has talked about cash and his time as prime minister, I think that the tax records are essential to finding answers.

[August1991]

Dobbin, some people don't like Mulroney. OK.

Did he take money in the Bear Head affair? Or was it Airbus? Or did he take money in both?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, some people don't like Mulroney. OK.

Did he take money in the Bear Head affair? Or was it Airbus? Or did he take money in both?

The problem is that many on the right wing are trying to say this only about people's dislike of Mulroney and there are no legitimate questions about the relationship between Shrieber and Mulroney and the question about the money involved.

[August1991]

The problem is that many on the right wing are trying to say this only about people's dislike of Mulroney and there are no legitimate questions about the relationship between Shrieber and Mulroney and the question about the money involved.

Dobbin, would you say the same of Chretien?

I happen to see a difference between Mulroney and Chretien. Mulroney did something and Chretien did nothing. But more important, I see that Stephen Harper is a different type of politician from both. Harper is an anglo/protestant Pierre Trudeau.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, would you say the same of Chretien?

I happen to see a difference between Mulroney and Chretien. Mulroney did something and Chretien did nothing. But more important, I see that Stephen Harper is a different type of politician from both. Harper is an anglo/protestant Pierre Trudeau.

There was an inquiry by Gomery on sponsorship. Harper called an inquiry on polls and it blew up in his face. He is free to call any other inquiry he feels necessary in regards to Chretien. Perhaps he can ask Johnston what the parameters should be.

I was no fan of the freewheeling money politics and favourtism of Quebec politics when Chretien was in power. If Harper feels a crime was committed, he should call an inquiry. I personally don't know. So far every attempt by the RCMP, inquiry or media scrutiny has not ended up in charges. I guess if you want you can blame a corrupt Liberal system but Harper is in power now and has the power to call an investigation. Why hasn't he?

You seem to think Harper's religion plays an important role in his prime ministership. I haven't seen it mentioned by any other analyst. Is this the Quebec view of things?

Edited January 26, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

The problem is that many on the right wing are trying to say this only about people's dislike of Mulroney and there are no legitimate questions about the relationship between Shrieber and Mulroney and the question about the money involved.

It may be a relevant question. So was the question about whether Riel was a traitor.

As the rock group Poco said "nothing happens in the past, so I think I'll take a walk out in the rain".

[margrace]

It may be a relevant question. So was the question about whether Riel was a traitor.

As the rock group Poco said "nothing happens in the past, so I think I'll take a walk out in the rain".

What a load of crap, how can you compare Mulroney a self centered egotist to Reil who was trying to protect his people?

[Argus]

What a load of crap, how can you compare Mulroney a self centered egotist to Reil who was trying to protect his people?

There's no question Mulroney was and is a self-centred egotist. There's no question Riel was nuts, a religious kook who saw himself as the messiah of the Metis - who are a sort of half-breed group which has declared itself a people. Both are/were imperfect. But I think both tried to do what they thought best for their people.

The fixation, one might even call it obsession the Left has with attacking Mulroney might lead one to question their collective sanity, too, btw.

[Argus]

The problem is that many on the right wing are trying to say this only about people's dislike of Mulroney and there are no legitimate questions about the relationship between Shrieber and Mulroney and the question about the money involved.

Which, of course, is true. Those obsessed with Mulroney, and there are many, have been accusing him and investigating him for fifteen years and they've come up with NOTHING to prove he ever did anything wrong. The very worst they can say is that he took some money from a lobbyist and did nothing in return.

Meanwhile, none of those fixated on Mulroney give a good goddam about the crooked shenanigans of Chretien, who by almost any measure was far more corrupt. The mystery surrounding Mulroney and Shreiber is nothing compared to the actual knowledge we have of Chretien and the Business Development Bank of Canada.

[Argus]

Rapley makes no mention of a 21st-century witch hunt in Canada today: the persecution of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who has not been shown to be guilty of any crime. Mr. Mulroney has been investigated for at least 15 years by the RCMP; by an author with an apparent axe to grind; by the CBC and other media; and now by a Parliamentary ethics committee looking into his dealings with shadowy German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber. In a few months, a public inquiry will be launched by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper into Mr. Mulroney's conduct, mostly after he left office and became a private citizen. None of these inquisitors has ever found evidence of a crime, and there is no indication there is any to be found. Yet the witch hunt goes on.

The mobbing of Brian Mulroney